Pumpkinhead said:

---

9 1/2 minutes repeated over and over, ME ruled it a homicide, plenty of video clips, Minny cops testifying use of force went too far, the prosecution's closing statements were pretty compelling.

IMO, The OJ verdict was 1000x more out of line than this one. You could easily justify at least manslaughter and it isn't hard to understand why the jurors went guilty on all counts.

National polls showed about 70% agreed with the verdict. The jurors did not deviate from what the majority of the country felt.

---

Given some of the charges are conflicting it's very hard to understand how they convicted on all charges.

Stupid@17 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

9 1/2 minutes repeated over and over, ME ruled it a homicide, plenty of video clips, Minny cops testifying use of force went too far, the prosecution's closing statements were pretty compelling.

IMO, The OJ verdict was 1000x more out of line than this one. You could easily justify at least manslaughter and it isn't hard to understand why the jurors went guilty on all counts.

National polls showed about 70% agreed with the verdict. The jurors did not deviate from what the majority of the country felt.

---

Given some of the charges are conflicting it's very hard to understand how they convicted on all charges.

---

They didn't deliberate. They just browbeat one juror who wasn't sure how the facts lined up with the jury instructions for several hours. It was pre-determined

Pumpkinhead said:

---

9 1/2 minutes repeated over and over, ME ruled it a homicide, plenty of video clips, Minny cops testifying use of force went too far, the prosecution's closing statements were pretty compelling.

IMO, The OJ verdict was 1000x more out of line than this one. You could easily justify at least manslaughter and it isn't hard to understand why the jurors went guilty on all counts.

National polls showed about 70% agreed with the verdict. The jurors did not deviate from what the majority of the country felt.

---

Oh well if we all voted for the verdict we wanted American Idol style and ignored the blatant threatening of the jury to give us the verdict we wanted then that's great! Gotta love justice in Biden's Amerika!

Pumpkinhead said:

---

9 1/2 minutes repeated over and over, ME ruled it a homicide, plenty of video clips, Minny cops testifying use of force went too far, the prosecution's closing statements were pretty compelling.

IMO, The OJ verdict was 1000x more out of line than this one. You could easily justify at least manslaughter and it isn't hard to understand why the jurors went guilty on all counts.

National polls showed about 70% agreed with the verdict. The jurors did not deviate from what the majority of the country felt.

---

But what % of the American public actually watched the trial?

I'd like to see how the percentages break down for people that actually watched the trial vs. just the bystander video.

NASAg03 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

9 1/2 minutes repeated over and over, ME ruled it a homicide, plenty of video clips, Minny cops testifying use of force went too far, the prosecution's closing statements were pretty compelling.

IMO, The OJ verdict was 1000x more out of line than this one. You could easily justify at least manslaughter and it isn't hard to understand why the jurors went guilty on all counts.

National polls showed about 70% agreed with the verdict. The jurors did not deviate from what the majority of the country felt.

---

But what % of the American public actually watched the trial?

I'd like to see how the percentages break down for people that actually watched the trial vs. just the bystander video.

---

Id have to imagine the number is abysmally low

Stupid@17 said:

---

NASAg03 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

9 1/2 minutes repeated over and over, ME ruled it a homicide, plenty of video clips, Minny cops testifying use of force went too far, the prosecution's closing statements were pretty compelling.

IMO, The OJ verdict was 1000x more out of line than this one. You could easily justify at least manslaughter and it isn't hard to understand why the jurors went guilty on all counts.

National polls showed about 70% agreed with the verdict. The jurors did not deviate from what the majority of the country felt.

---

But what % of the American public actually watched the trial?

I'd like to see how the percentages break down for people that actually watched the trial vs. just the bystander video.

---

Id have to imagine the number is abysmally low

---

Literally watched most of the entire trial? I would assume mostly only unemployeed or retiree types had that sort of time to invest in such an endeavor.

But if all you did was just watch the closing statements by the prosecution and defense, which are up on YouTube, it isn't hard to understand why someone would have voted Chauvin Guilty on murder (or at least manslaughter). The prosecution's case was pretty compelling. It had all the emotional advantages, the ME ruled it a homicide, Chauvin's own supervisor and police chief testified he got out-of-line, the sequence of video clips put together by the prosecution looked damning, 9 1/2 minutes, 9 1/2 minutes...that length of time was beaten like a drum. Even without knowing most of the folks in that particular county where those jurors lived were on the emotional side of the prosecution, the prosecution had put together a compelling case to convict, but you also had all of that external stuff going on.

Meanwhile the defense is having to parse legal definitions and pick away at minute chemistry and police procedure details to try to convince the jury of "Reasonable doubt", and the jury utimately didn't bite. All the other stuff was just too much.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Stupid@17 said:

---

NASAg03 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

9 1/2 minutes repeated over and over, ME ruled it a homicide, plenty of video clips, Minny cops testifying use of force went too far, the prosecution's closing statements were pretty compelling.

IMO, The OJ verdict was 1000x more out of line than this one. You could easily justify at least manslaughter and it isn't hard to understand why the jurors went guilty on all counts.

National polls showed about 70% agreed with the verdict. The jurors did not deviate from what the majority of the country felt.

---

But what % of the American public actually watched the trial?

I'd like to see how the percentages break down for people that actually watched the trial vs. just the bystander video.

---

Id have to imagine the number is abysmally low

---

Literally watched most of the entire trial? I would assume mostly only unemployeed or retiree types had that sort of time to invest in such an endeavor.

But if all you did was just watch the closing statements by the prosecution and defense, which are up on YouTube, it isn't hard to understand why someone would have voted Chauvin Guilty on murder (or at least manslaughter). The prosecution's case was pretty compelling. It had all the emotional advantages, the ME ruled it a homicide, Chauvin's own supervisor and police chief testified he got out-of-line, the sequence of video clips put together by the prosecution looked damning,
9 1/2 minutes, 9 1/2 minutes...that length of time was beaten like a drum.

• doesn't matter, no physical evidence in the autopsy that should have been found was not found that this was even remotely associated with this suicide.

Even without knowing most of the folks in that particular county where those jurors lived were on the emotional side of the prosecution, the prosecution had put together a compelling case to convict,

• compelling like the "expert witness" that stated Floyd had a healthy heart. (autopsy revealed an enlarged heart and blocked arterial arteries)

but you also had all of that external stuff going on.

Meanwhile the defense is having to parse legal definitions and pick away at minute chemistry and police procedure details to try to convince the jury of "Reasonable doubt", and the jury utimately didn't bite. All the other stuff was just too much.

---

You can rant all you want but the evidence was ignored in favor of fear and emotions.

Didn't consider my post a 'rant'. Just an opinion. Folks have different opinions on here and I respect that.

I watched it all with a full time job, taking microbiology, and a 1 year old. The real trick is not to watch it live; that way you can skip the breaks and sidebars and watch at 2X speed. The lawyers speak so slowly that 2x speed is not only faster but sometimes, more enjoyable.

Quote:

---

When the jury foreman tallied the votes that morning, one of the jurors recalled, there were 11 papers with a "G" written on them guilty. One paper said "U," for unsure. The seven women and five men spent the next few hours poring over the evidence in one of the most closely watched trials in a generation, according to Brandon Mitchell, who has been the only juror to publicly describe the deliberations last week near Minneapolis. Mr. Mitchell said the jurors watched the graphic videos of Mr. Floyd's death, discussed the testimony of many of the witnesses and experts, and created their own timeline using markers and a whiteboard. By lunchtime, Mr. Mitchell said, the juror who had been unsure, a white woman, had made up her mind: Mr. Chauvin was guilty of all charges... "I had no doubt in my mind," Mr. Mitchell said of his decision about Mr. Chauvin's guilt. Jurors discussed the case for about seven hours over two days before reaching a verdict on the afternoon of April 20, Mr. Mitchell said. They spent much of the first evening of deliberations getting to know one another rather than talking about the case, he said.

---

Via Hot Air

chickencoupe16 said:

---

I watched it all with a full time job, taking microbiology, and a 1 year old. The real trick is not to watch it live; that way you can skip the breaks and sidebars and watch at 2X speed. The lawyers speak so slowly that 2x speed is not only faster but sometimes, more enjoyable.

---

Ah gotcha.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

When the jury foreman tallied the votes that morning, one of the jurors recalled, there were 11 papers with a "G" written on them guilty. One paper said "U," for unsure. The seven women and five men spent the next few hours poring over the evidence in one of the most closely watched trials in a generation, according to Brandon Mitchell, who has been the only juror to publicly describe the deliberations last week near Minneapolis. Mr. Mitchell said the jurors watched the graphic videos of Mr. Floyd's death, discussed the testimony of many of the witnesses and experts, and created their own timeline using markers and a whiteboard. By lunchtime, Mr. Mitchell said, the juror who had been unsure, a white woman, had made up her mind: Mr. Chauvin was guilty of all charges... "I had no doubt in my mind," Mr. Mitchell said of his decision about Mr. Chauvin's guilt. Jurors discussed the case for about seven hours over two days before reaching a verdict on the afternoon of April 20, Mr. Mitchell said. They spent much of the first evening of deliberations getting to know one another rather than talking about the case, he said.

---

Via Hot Air

---

your nurse imo

Icecream_Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

When the jury foreman tallied the votes that morning, one of the jurors recalled, there were 11 papers with a "G" written on them guilty. One paper said "U," for unsure. The seven women and five men spent the next few hours poring over the evidence in one of the most closely watched trials in a generation, according to Brandon Mitchell, who has been the only juror to publicly describe the deliberations last week near Minneapolis. Mr. Mitchell said the jurors watched the graphic videos of Mr. Floyd's death, discussed the testimony of many of the witnesses and experts, and created their own timeline using markers and a whiteboard. By lunchtime, Mr. Mitchell said, the juror who had been unsure, a white woman, had made up her mind: Mr. Chauvin was guilty of all charges... "I had no doubt in my mind," Mr. Mitchell said of his decision about Mr. Chauvin's guilt. Jurors discussed the case for about seven hours over two days before reaching a verdict on the afternoon of April 20, Mr. Mitchell said. They spent much of the first evening of deliberations getting to know one another rather than talking about the case, he said.

---

Via Hot Air

---

your nurse imo

---

If the problem, like has been said, was over wording, I'm thinking the insurance lady who loves Minnesota.

The jury appears to have been tainted from the start.

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) May 2, 2021